Cameron On A 3D TITANIC Release, A Reissue Of AVATAR, And More!!

Merrick here...
Over at USA Today, Ed Baig spoke to James Cameron about many interesting things. Two particular points of interest jump out of the article.
Shortly before AVATAR's release, we began hearing rumblings that TITANIC would return to theaters in a 3Dimensionalized form. Seems a bit more thought has been given to this possibility. Cameron says...

We're targeting spring of 2012 for the release (of a 3D version of Titanic), which is the 100 year anniversary of the sailing of the ship.

Regarding a potential theatrical reissue of AVATAR:

The wildcard is that we might be re-releasing the movie this fall. It's kind of gotten stomped out (in theaters) because of Alice in Wonderland. The word we're getting back from exhibitors is we probably left a couple of hundred million dollars on the table as a result. The question is the appetite still going to be there after the summer glut of movies. We're going to assess that. We're talking about maybe adding in additional footage and doing something creative.

All of this, and more, can be gleaned from USA Today HERE.
I can't speak to any national or global trends, but I can say that AVATAR (IMAX) in Austin was extremely well attended...even close-to-packed...in the week leading up to ALICE's arrival. So much so that I was surprised the film was being shown the door before attendance tapered off.
---Follow Merrick on Twitter! ---

and I kinda only ever wanted to watch it once. It was a great experience, and I liked it, but if I watched it more than once it would become just a movie, instead of an experience.
<p>
Now, I wonder if it's worth going back to the ship if it's in 3d...

Unless they update the CGI boat, I don't think 3-D will compliment that movie very well (except, of course, the aforementioned Winslet boobies). It will be interesting to see how much money Alice In Wonderland pulls in this weekend (indicating the long run) - just to see if Avatar is an anomaly of unprecidented success, or the new trend of movie going. If it is the latter, then a reissue of Avatar isn't going to go over too well. People will be looking for the next big 3-D thing, rather than backtrack to Avatar (or, to an even lesser extent, Titanic)

It's kinda refreshing to see Cameron actually address the truckloads of cash that they seemingly ignored in favor of giving Alice an unnecessary 3D showcase. The movie probably works a hell of a lot better in 2D. <P>
Although it was kinda scary how people were still going to see Avatar in droves. I'd wager that before year's end most, if not all of the theaters stateside will be 3D equipped. It just makes sense now.

His movie makes the most money of any film ever (and fuck off adjusted for inflation naysayers- this is still a shitwad of money you'll never see in 10,000 lifetimes) and he complains about leaving money on the table.

BUT isnt the length of the movies limited in the IMAX theaters,in 2h and 40m? And thats the main reason that some scenes were cut from the movie,whose final lentgh is about 2h40m.
<p>So how can Cameron add new scenes in Avatar,if the Imax can not play the extra time of the movie?

the IMAX limit thing doesn't exist anymore i don't think because Watchmen was almost 3hrs and played there. not sure why it was ever limited in the first place but i think they got over that hurdle early on.

As cool as 3D can be(Kate Winslet's tits, people hurtling past my field of vision as they hit the icy waters), now everytime I see that some movie is in 3D it means 3moreDollars tacked onto the already high ticket price. Sometimes 4. And Titanic in 3D? The best thing I got out of Titanic was that an ex-girlfriend posed naked for me to draw. And afterwards we didn't have a rich fiance and gun toting Brit to run away from. I still haven't seen Avatar. Never say never, but just wasn't high on my list. I'm sure when Uncle George gets his epic set up in 3D I'll go see it. Again.
I need coffee.

If all they show are the parts where they're walking through the ship, the ship is sinking, or they're exploring the ship on the ocean floor. Basically just remove any of the love story and I'll be there.

Y'know I watched TITANIC again quite recently, and right through the movie I was thinking to myself - "Hey, this movie's pretty damn great. Why did I have a low opinion of it?"... and then it got to the end of the movie. And it happened.<p>
That last ten minutes after the boat has sunk and we are back with the granny on the boat throwing her necklace overboard (thank a fucking bunch lady, says Bill Paxton who had no doubt commited his families life savings to trying to find it), and then Granny dies and young Rose appears with all the 'ghosts' back on the boat again - those last ten minutes are fucking terrible. They really leave a bad taste.<p>
If Cameron does re-release it my advise is to cut that coda from the end of the movie!!!

He's wants to capitalize on a tragedy by re-releasing Titanic on it's anniversary. Fucking scum. And he really needs "a couple hundred million" more from Avatar after it has already made billions? It isn't enough that he's already wiping his fat ass with hundred dollar bills. No wonder this guy is probably the most hated director in Hollywood after Bay.

...Alice be cause we have an IMAX 3D and I KNEW Alice was going to bump it. The theater was completely packed. Two groups of people left because they couldn't find enough seats together. Also, sad or not, I would pay to see it again with again in the theater with additional footage.

Avatar is already 162 minutes long. How is significant additional footage going be added (and there's a lot of it - the first cut of the movie was 4hrs and 18 mins long)? The IMAX run time limits are a nuisance - despite what Cameron says we would have got a 40 min longer film first time round, and it would have been even better.<p>As for Titanic, there's nowt wrong with that ending. Cobra-Kai, just be glad he didn't use the alternate one with Bill Paxton laughing like he's stoned and Granny Rose smiling mockishly, like she's hopped up on meds, at Wild Bill and the fat ginger guy who looks like Harry. But it's a good film, and always was; as Cameron said on Charlie Rose, its geek/male armor to not admit to liking that film.<p>I'd prefer a rerelease of T2, though, in 3D, and fuck it - if Cameron ain't going to give us any more Terminator, then how about filming the end of the future war and time travel sequences from the original script as an extended prologue and almost a short film 'bonus' to tempt folk back into the theaters?

After all the summer movies come out people are going to be sick of 3D because so much of it will be 3D conversion which looks awful and they'll be sick of paying $13-15 per ticket. 3D prices families out of the theater.<p>
Also, 3D really isn't good for your eyes and after continual experience people will realize the headaches aren't from the loud sound system and the eyetension isn't from being on the computer all day.

Watchmen (the theatrical cut) was a hair over 160 minutes, and they sped the credits up to twice the speed to get it under and to fit. Apparently the limit was 160 minutes then; now it seems to be nearer 170. Back near the turn of the millenium it was around 2 hours max, which is why the IMAX version of Attack of the Clones released back then was heavily edited (and some say better). I'd like an accurate figure on all this IMAX stuff, because I can't see future releases being compromised. I mean, surely The Hobbit (if it's released in IMAX) will be around 3 hours? I can see the Avatar sequels being quite a bit longer, too. I think there was talk of releasing two different versions of Avatar at first, one in IMAX, one in regular 3D theaters, but they (rightfully I say) decided against it).

It's not false info it's scientific fact. The human eye moves and dialates in order to focus. 3D technology alters the natural process the eye takes in order to create the 3D effect. The unnatural alteration in vision can cause eye strain, tension headaches and vertigo. It doesn't effect everyone as drastically but it does effect everyone. Problems also occur after view 3D as the eyes try to go back to normal vision.<p>
You may be one of the people who doesn't feel the effect of 3D as harshly as others and that is great, I hope you enjoy it but I'm talking about the mass movie going audience who isn't going to want to shell out the extra money and those who find that it diminishes their movie going experience.

I'd love to check out "Titanic" in 3D, as well as a possible footage-added "Avatar."<p>
Despite what people write about it on this site, "Titanic" is still a fantastic fucking film. The moments from it that talkbackers criticize are just distant red-herring embellishments geared to support their own fractured memory of it.<p>
It's a great movie and there are hundreds of reasons, not including the chick factors, why it did so well.<p>
But I was also one of the very few on this site who thought "Avatar" would do just fine storywise and economically.<p>
I'd definitely go see "Titanic" again.

I go out of my way to avoid this film. No one with a pair between there legs gives a fuck about this film unless they are slaves to the woman they married, or they go down of other dudes. As for Avatar going Rocky Horror picture show. No.... Jigs up!!!!!!
<P>
Cool ride, but not so much the second time around. Now get back into the kitchen and whip up something new.
<P>
I honestly think Titanic is retarded as hell and it real fans are of the Dirty Dancing Twilight breed. There was no blue fucking diamond, no Jack or Jill or what ever the fuck they are named- no haggish old bitch survivor visiting the site like it made a fuck to her. This wasn't a love song to the victims or the events, and it was about as historical as inglorious bastards. Hollywood tends to salute/praise the fucking films based on facts that tell elaborate tales completely unreal to what the fuck actually happened. Back in the kitchen, if you please.

...and any other sanctimonious idiots saying Cameron is "capitalizing" on the tragedy of the Titanic. Yeah, that's his intention. I'm sure he thanks God for that iceberg every night as he greedily counts his stacks of bills in his vault. Did Alex Haley callously "capitalize" off of slavery when he wrote Roots? Are film makers callous or insensitive if they make a movie based on the events of 9/11?<p>
If so what does that say about the countless numbers of people who pay money to watch those films/tv shows etc?<p>
Since time immemorial people have taken real life tragedy and put them into verse, song dance, writing etc. These are events which are part of everyone's cultural memory. People want to hear theses stories again and again. Movies will be made. Deal with it. Just because people are rewarded handsomely for well done, quality movies or books doesn't make it immoral.

Artistic vision/integrity and perfectionism take it forced ass-side in the back seat of a rental when money gets involved. <P> JC is making money, lots of it. <P> He knows this 3d fad is running on borrowed time. <P> Strike hard, strike fast, before people lose that "WOW" factor *cough* Jurassic Park.
<P>
Grow a functional fucking flesh pentium. It's about M-O-N-E-Y.........

March 12, 2010, 2:27 p.m. CST

by Cobra--Kai

LORD, I thought story-wise it had a few underlying themes. One was the hubris of Victorian England 'the unsinkable ship'. But perhaps another was the fall of the British Empire (the largest the world had ever known) and the passing of the torch over to America - symbolized by the journey of the boat and the aristocratic but hard-up Winslet family.<p>
OR MAYBE IT WAS JUST A FLICK ABOUT A BIG BOAT THAT SANK! DAMN YOU CAMERON FOR BREAKING MY BRAIN!!

...is fucking BULLSHIT. That was the rare movie that appealed to every conceivable age range and demographic group. Disaster Porn for the guys, the deep-rooted fascination with the actual historical disaster, and, yes, dreamy Leo for the girls. But middle-aged male movie critics were equally effusive with their praise of the film. The movie even attracted elderly moviegoers who hadn't been out to a theater in YEARS. I can understand guys bitching about those Twilight movies, as those ARE aimed strictly at 'tweenage girls, but Titanic is a magnificent, epic movie experience...or do you avoid Gone With The Wind as a "chick flick" as well? Remember that Man In The Iron Mask movie that came out during the height of Leo-mainia in the spring of 1998, while Titanic was still ruling the box office? If teenage girls were all that were fuelling the commercial success of Cameron's film, then why did Mask stall out at a $55 million U.S. Gross? Why hasn't ANY DiCaprio movie in the dozen years since ever topped the $200 million mark? Or even $150 million? <BR><BR>Honestly...get over it.

You saw the movie in cinemas,you bought the vhs tape,you upgraded to dvd,then they brought out the directors cut dvd,then upgraded to bluray-now youre expected to pay again for a theatrical reissue in 3D(for an extortionate ticket price)after that there will be the 3D bluray-which will no doubt cost more than a standard bluray.Time to get off the rip-off merry-go-round methinks.From now on,I will just go to the cinema if its a movie I absolutely MUST see.Otherwise,if its a movie Im not too fussed about,I will just rent the dvd/bluray when it comes out.I would advise you all do the same.The only way to hurt these greedy bastards is to vote with your wallet

a second run. You know it too be true. The FX is dated. The love plot is lame. The Diamond bit is fucking retarded as all hell and an insult to the victims and legend of the real event. The original audience was swept up in the scope of the film, not the plot or characters.If the film still attracted the same number of fans, Network stations would fucking kill one another to run it on T.V. every fucking Thanksgiving and Christmas to net more money from sponsors. If these fans were still there as you say it would have more Double dipped DVD versions of itself than "THE EVIL DEAD" does.
<P>
Cameron's Abyss, Alien's and Terminator are still Class Acts. I love those films in a very unhealthy manner. JC really outdid himself on all of them.

I had to travel 20 miles away to the only theater still playing it after Alice, but damn it was worth it. Beer, couches, gourmet food, 50 foot screen, perfect sound, and a hot date who hadn't seen it yet. Good times.

He shits quarters. His brain is linked up with a IMAX 3D projector. He has been sent back in time to terminate all film makers with the audacity of making a 3D film that falls short of his almighty standards. And he will happily take a big shit on over one thousand people who died on the Titanic so he can ring in a couple more milion bucks. He is an unstoppable capitalist machine with no soul, no morals and a bad haircut. He is the Cameronator.

Lucas and Spielberg,why not the King of Kings? At least with Cameron as a producer,Holywood has a chance to enter an age of Renaissance amd stop making all these remakes and crap movies,since Cameron will make big-budget movies using good directors and writers.DO IT JIM.

Your a douche. No one gives a shit if you actively avoid Titanic you walking stereotype. Why don't you actually grow a set of balls and think for yourself, knocking Titanic doesn't make you more of a man. Cameron never claimed Titanic was a documentary...it was a fictional love story mixed in with the disaster of Titanic. But considering every detail was followed meticulously in set construction and the sinking, there's more then enough historical accuracy to dismiss what you say as BS. And despite what you think, Titanic played a huge part in making people all around the world aware of the tragedy who would probably never of gave two shits...that alone is worth something.
<p>
And I can't believe people actually believe Avatar was some money grab for Cameron. He could have made ANY movie he wanted, instead he decided to make something original based on no source material, so very refreshing in a time where big-name directors hardly EVER do that anymore (ex. Alice in Wonderland). He also spent 5 years crafting the movie, and helped create new technology to tell it. No one would have ever guessed it would be this successful - in fact, lest we forget, most thought it would be a huge failure. I mean, it takes some serious balls to go into production on a movie with CGI main-characters, knowing that if he didn't cross the uncanny valley (which they hadn't yet), the movie would be fucked. Face it, he took a HUGE risk and it paid off...and only real artists take risks like that.
<p>
And to the asshole who wished Avatar used people painted blue, seriously, just GTFO. That is the stupidest shit I've ever heard, and if Cameron had gone that route (which never would have happened - it was CGI from the start of nothing) the movie would have been a COLLOSAL FAILURE. Plus how the fuck do you film the scene where Neytiri holds Jake with Zoe Saldana in blue makeup? You can't.

How on earth did Avatar - a movie in it's 12th week of release - get stomped out by a new release of Alice in Wonderland, one of the most famous stories ever. Not to mention an Alice in Wonderland directed by Tim Burton starring Johnny Depp. Man...that's just so embarrasing for Avatar. Looks like it won't 800$ million...
<p>
you douche.

The effects scenes.. especially that of the mo-cap shots of the boat out on the water.. get redone. They were ahead of its time for its day but rather primitive now. The whole movie could use a once over really, especially since they're allready converting to 3D. I'm thinking of like a Star Trek TOS style update where certain scenes get updated and redone in-line but you don't have anything actually added or subtracted from the runtime Star Wars Special Edition style.

The 3D in Avatar makes the movie. The CG characters look "fine" in 2D but in 3D they really do look so much more real. I think I openly mocked someone here who said that when they saw the IMAX preview thingy. <BR><BR> So I ... was.... wrong. Sorry :)
<BR><BR> Titanic in 3D would be... well... fine I guess. It's not exactly suited for 3D except the outside scenes at the end. I don't think it would look good. Maybe Cameron could redo the flyover scene at the beginning where the first mate ( I think it's him ) is walking across the desk. The CG there looks really bad. I think most people didn't otice in the theater because you're supposed to be looking at the ship at the time, but it was like early 90's bad. :)

When they conducted people's most favorite and most hated films of the century polls 11 years ago, Titanic featured in the Top 10 of BOTH polls i.e it was equally loved and detested. Today, it is just detested. I'm guessing something similar will happen with Avatar. Ten years from now you'll find it hard to find people admit that they liked Avatar let alone loved it. Cameron is able to capture the zeitgeist but once the time passes his movies are looked upon with disdain.

Cause I can tell you that the movie is still unequivocally popular. The DVD set that came out a couple years ago was a record seller. And no, Avatar will not be detested in 10 years time, either. It's popularity will grow, particularly as Cameron builds on the mythology with some killer sequels.<p>As for Cameron's films being detested - yep, Aliens and the Terminator sure are, aren't they? Oh, so just Titanic and presumably Avatar, then? Gotcha. Sour grapes, I love it. But don't worry, King Jim confers the almighty hand of forgiveness upon you. Don't you fuckers ever get tired of being wrong ALL THE F'ING TIME, heh?

It's hardly ever shown by TV stations. You don't bump into people at parties and hear "Titanic is my favorite film of all time". Most people have the DVD hidden away at the back of their collection. And how many times do you hear DiCaprio mentioning Titanic in his interviews? The guy is positively embarassed of it.

It was inevitable. After all, the first Star Wars also had a re-release some months later. And hey, so did The Dark Knight last year in January. It was only a matter of time before they decided to do the same with Avatar. And if it gets additional footage, EVEN BETTER!!!

Hardly ever shown on TV? I've seen it plenty of times on TV, though that certainly wouldn't prove anything to the pro or contra in any case. The ONLY people that Titanic is 'hated' by are guys (some of whom secretly like it). Women still eat that shit up like pudding and yes, many will say that it is their favourite movie of all time. I wouldn't expect Titanic to get any love here at all, though; we all know what kind of site this is.<p>As for DiCrapio - he's an earnest douche with pretentions above his meager talent and intelligence. I couldn't care less what he thinks.

was EPIC. I remember watching it when I was 7, and a few times after, and loving the whole "tragic" setup for the awesome sinking ship scenes. I haven't seen it in years, but I'll probably check out the 3D release. avatar was cool visually, but the story just felt way too fabricated. of course, with transformers 2 being the 2nd biggest movie all year, the starved public saw it as an instant classic.

"I feel you" lines from avatar are at LEAST 10 times gayer than the cheesy titanic ending. Only in aicn do geeks think a movie showing Kate's titties is gayer than giant blue cat aliens falling in love and whispering sweet nothings. seriously, someone explain that to me.

Cameron's a douche for capitalizing on the tragedy? I think he's probably a douche, but not for making a movie about the sinking of a ship that happened almost 100 years prior to the release. Fuck your fake hypersensitivity. <P>
As for Titanic, I had the same problems with it that I did with Avatar. Great visuals, bland (love) story.

Especially given that most of the film is given over to drawing-room melodrama. If Cameron is desperate to 3D up his back catalogue I would have thought that either T2 or The Abyss (NOT Aliens!) would make more sense, particularily as the Terminator 3D ride worked so well.<p>As to the quality of Titanic as a film - well, the first time I saw it I was blown away by the whole thing. However it does worsen with every progressive viewing in my opinion, chiefly because - despite his alleged historical nerdism - Cameron seems unable to make the film and it's leads seem anything other than highly contempory. Having spent millions of Fox dollars making sure that the light fittings and the tea cups are accurate down to the last millimeter, its depressing to see historical social conventions snubbed so firmly: Winslet painted up like a common prostitute of the period wandering about the ship with her hair down long before the chaos of the actual sinking and Leo giving off the vibe that any second he's going to whip out his Game Boy for a quick game of Donkey Kong. And let's not start on the use of 'the finger'. JC's justifications for all this on the DVD commentary are unconvincing; of course he can do no wrong...

Where is the ultra coolness that James Cameron built his reputation as a filmmaker on? Aliens and Terminator. I appreciate the technology and innovation that he continues to bring to filmmaking, but I want to see more films on the edge and dark out of this guy. Next film will be a 'Save The Whales' flick. C'mon, Cameron, show us some more of what the James Cameron brand was built on.

...who's the P.T. Barnum of Global Warming. Both will say or do anything in order to get the suckers to open up their wallets and cough up their cash. Cameron couldn't care less about good filmmaking. He just wants to milk the current 3D craze for all it's worth and keep pushing it along as long as possible.

Thanks to better characters,dialog and horner's legendary soundtrack, I can't see cameron creatively topping himself. 3D is just a reocurring fad and I doubt it would justify the purchase of a expensive LCD.

TITANIC:<p>
"It's hardly ever shown by TV stations."<p>
" You don't bump into people at parties and hear "Titanic is my favorite film of all time"<p>
"And how many times do you hear DiCaprio mentioning Titanic in his interviews?" <p>
Clear evidence that the movie is detested by all.<p>
What a douche.

...comments. I wish we could know how many of those same people said Avatar wouldn't make any money, would be gone from theaters in one week, would never make back it's budget, etc.? When asked about expectations for Avatar on Inside the Actors Studio Cameron said they figured it would only do about ONE THIRD of what it's done already. In regards to re-releasing it to make another couple hundred million, y'all do understand how directors get to keep spending large sums of other peoples money on whatever movie project they want, right? The word is PROFIT. The more the better.

Maybe you and that doucher name dropping guy can hook up and fuck one another while watching Titanic on bluray or something. Rejoicing over your self proclaimed King's amazing moving picture triumph with cum shots to the face.

Since the ship was rendered using lightwave 3d. It would be possible to make an increadible 3d movie but I doubt that anyone would want to spend the money to re-edit such a big movie, it would take a lot of time and a ton of artists, but the results would be awesome.

Not once did he mention the movie Titanic. <p>
He's clearly ashamed of his participation with Cameron with his horrible, money-grubbing ploy to cash in on the death and tragedy of the historical Titanic.<p>
It's obvious.

Was there money still left on the table? I guess so. Because of all sorts of crazy things going on, I didn't get to see AVATAR till it's last weekend, right before ALICE rolled into town and took over the bulk of the IMAX screens.<p>Was it fun seeing it big screen and in 3D? Sure. But I got wallet shock from paying $18 for a ticket and then it cost me another $12 or so for refreshments. And the other night when I went to see ALICE, fucking AMC was charging $16 a ticket for that.<p>When it gets to the point that the "movie theater experience" is gonna cost me like 30 bucks to see these things -- it's time for me to start saving money and waiting for HBO. Screw it. I love seeing things on the big screen, but not at these fucked up prices. Unfortunately, the studios and theaters know they have a new fad on their hands and in their quest to make more money -- since they're always bitching how much they're losing -- they're going to milk 3D for all its worth.

You guys are really reaching for excuses to hate on the guy now... What about oh, Pearl harbor, Enemy at the Gates, and every damn movie and documentary about WWII, 9/11, the middle East, Vietnam, Korea, Africa, India, the civil war, from westerns to Rambo to Quantum of Solace and everything in between??? Why not call out all their exploiting??? Or are only Cameron's movies such as Titanic and Avatar racist and capalizing on past tragedies? I'm surprised no one here wants to stand up and decry the treatment and portrayal of Aliens and sentient machines... don't they have rights???!!! Aliens are black in colour and oily! Maybe that means something!!! Ever think about that??? Morons!

at the 1998 oscars. How the fuck did it not win Best Picture and Best Screenplay? Maybe it should have gotten Best Director too. It was a fucking joke it lost out to Titanic in those caegories. THANK GOD history did not repeat itself and Avatar got well and truly shit on at this year's oscars (although it was still a joke Avatar won Best Cinematography - it's a computer game!).

Why is there always one talkbacker who is determined to derail every thread into a grandstand for their bullshit political spoutings? Comparing Cameron to Gore and 3D filmmaking to Climate Change is without doubt the most idiotic and meritless piece of trolling I've seen in quite some time. You stupid, stupid cunt.

The bulk of the sequences involving the ship seen from bow to stern were shot using extremely large beauty models rather than digital 3D constructions, including the famous 'helicopter shot' that pulls out from Jack and Fabrizio and passes back over the entire vessel. Ditto the scene where the ship snaps in two - a big fuck off model augmented with digital people and debris.

...just see a cheaper afternoon matinee and SKIP THE OVERPRICED SNACKS! Honestly, why spend ten bucks for a bucket of stale popcorn and a thimbleful of flat diet Coke when you can go out to eat after the movie is finished and get better food for half the price? I have never understood the cumpulsion some people have to continuously shovel food into their mouths while watching a movie, and adding the ludicrous concession stand prices (yes, I know this is where movie theaters make 90% of their profits) makes it even more inexplicable. I just see an afternoon matinee, then walk down the street to BJ's and get a couple of giant pretzels and a giant soda for four bucks.

I hear what you're saying but I wouldn't say she's out of it yet. I recently watched The Reader and couldn't help but notice that, sadly, time is catching up with Kate. Her face has hardened a bit, the wrinkles are evident, but she's still a total beauty, still very regal looking, and her gorgeous smile remains intact. I wouldn't cast her in Harrison Ford territory just yet. Then again, I still think Meryl Streep is gorgeous.

That was an ass double. Anytime she's topless it's clearly her. I mean, she's done it like 25 times now. We know what they look like. But there's a shot of a woman standing nude in front of the kid and that is NOT Kate Winslett. Her figure is, and always has been, much fuller than that. Not a big deal, I just thought it was clearly noticeable considering how often she's been fully nude in other films. Also, I thought The Reader was great, and I'm a fan of Revolutionary Road (one of like, three). I kinda worship me some Kate Winslett, though. However, don't know if it's work, genes or just good living, but I'd agree that Meryl Streep has aged better than Kate is.

...on the boards lately. The usual shrill lefty fucktards are keeping quiet as to to not draw fire to the astonishing incompetence of the current administration. "Nothing to see here folks." Keep moving. Just be a good little consumer and go to the movies. All will be taken care of for you.

I loved both movies and although I can't watch 3D movies because of my vision I am not real happy that Cameron wants us to double dip with an Avatar DVD. A regular edition is coming out in April and I am now sure a director's cut will come out later. I wish he's just do the director's cut now. Isn't Avatar a movie against corporate greed!!?

You and others are taking my examples too literally. What I'm saying is that for such a high grossing, successful film there is definitely NOT a similar outpouring of love for Titanic. People love the original Star Wars. They love Shawshank Redemption. They love Fellowship Of The Ring. You can detect that outpouring of devotion (just browse film forums). But it's absent for Titanic. I've never met anyone who has expressed any love for it. Quite the opposite.

You are using a self-selected sample of the movie-going audience. Casual movie-goers and most women do not frequent movie sites; they just don't. They aren't film geeks like us.
<p>
<p>
The movies you cited, except for Shawshank, are genre movies that inherently engender devotion within that self-selected pool of movie goers.

Women should come into this debate. Women (or at least teenage girls) made the the shitty Twilight films millions. Women may love Titanic but, really, who cares? And you'd surprised be surprised how many "casual" movie fans frequent forums. Everyone is eager to give their two cents these days.

you prove to me that idiots are unfortunately everywhere in this world.One month ago i had the exact same conversation in a greek forum about Titanic and whether it remains a classic,and ofc the first argument i got was the exact same like yours: people are talking about LOTR but not about Titanic.
<p>Now an adult using his brain could figure out that such arguments are the least meaningless.Does Titanic has in any way,any similarity with LOTR? can they be compared in any way?
<p>The one is a single movie,a disaster movie with a love story,the other is a behemoth of a franchise,an epic fantasy franchise which is supported by movies,books,videogames,merchandiseand so on.
<p>Really if i have to follow this kind of logic,then Casablanca,Gone with the Wind,Ben Hur,etc must not be classics,because you know they are not being discussed like the new Hobbit movie is being discussed by the millions of geeks.idiot.

And yes, Titanic and LOTR CAN b compared because they are both popcorn flicks. Cameron did not make Titanic a factual, historical documentary-style movie like A Night To Remember. He made a light entertainment popcorn/ chick flick which just happened to be centered around the sinking of a famous ship. Jeez Ominus. Get over yourself.

lets reply:
<p>According to umbral's logic Citizen Kane is a popcorn movie,since its not a documentary style movie but rather a fictional movie based on the life of a real person.And since its a popcorn movie it can be compared to TF2 which is also a popcorn movie.And since people (the geeks actually) are talking more about TF2,rather than TF2 in their movie conversations,that means that TF2 is classic while Kane is not.
<p>Umbral do you try to think before you talk or you just let it go?

Jesus, the technical achievement and scope of that film alone is remarkable. A popcorn flick is 2012, The Day after Tomorrow, ID4, TF1 & 2, Rush Hour films, Bad Boys. I see a popcorn flick as a movie where you leave your brain at the door, and it's just an action type of flick.

I think you can quite safely leave your brain at the door before watching Titanic. It is not a film that most people find intellectually taxing. And Ominus, you are tiresome to the extreme. Titanic was a piece of mass entertainment. Twentieth Century Fox only greenlighted it after Cameron pitched the Romeo and Juliet love angle because they knew it would register with a wider demographic. Titanic is popcorn entertainment masquerading as something deeper (and the same can be said of virtually all Cameron's films).

I work on the weekends at a movie theater. I sell tickets. At our theater, we have one DLP projector, so we only show one 3D film at any given time. I can't even tell you how many people have come to see Avatar in the last 2 weeks and were about to buy tickets, only to say they don't want to see it at the last minute after I tell them we're not showing it in 3D any longer. <p>
Cameron is probably right. They probably HAVE lost millions of dollars. People don't want to see it if it's not in 3D.

Posting to insist that the retarded political gobshites are largely absent from this forum, before going on to vomit forth the usual witless nonsense about 'shrill lefty fucktards'. Perhaps you could just fuck off to to the same place as that mewling cunt TheGhostWhoLurks. Moron.

No comparison between LOTR and Titanic. Apples and oranges, you know. However, Camerons meticulous attention to detail on Titanic is there. From the exact replication of the anatomy of the disaster to the recreation of the inside as well. There is detail there that never even makes it on film i.e woodwork on the main staircase, emblems on the dinner plates etc. <p>
I remember Siskel and Ebert pointing out what a masterstroke it was for him to illustrate the technical outline of the how and why the ship sank. Cameron was then free to tell his story and during the sinking scene the audience knew what was happening and why. <p>
Now, other than basic ship records and pithy first hand accounts...there is no 'individual' stories to be fully and accurately told. He used all historical data available as a skeleton to clothe with his own fiction. A wise move. <p>
Whether or not you think his story is worth a damn us another issue. My guess is these same people would be bitching about historical innaccuracies had he attempted to cobble together a story of true passengers.

People showing up to make comments guaranteed to invite both personal abuse and also cause the talkback to descend into the inevitable partisan pre-school slanging matches, is one of the more tedious aspects of this forum. If you fucking idiots could manage to keep on topic for more than three seconds without feeling the need to shoehorn in the phrases 'whiney commie' and 'neo-con nazi' into entirely unrelated subjects, we might be able to discuss FILM a bit more.